THE COURT: I don't know. I don't know what it is. You're going to have to let me see it. But if it is, then I'll give that same instruction.

PRICE: Judge, we'll object to this, based on best evidence rule and also based, this isn't an original document. We also object to the relevancy of this.

(PAGES FLIPPING)

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, I'll be glad to supply the original.

PRICE: Could, could we see the entire black book the State's looking at?

FOGLEMAN: You've got copies of everything in here.

PRICE: Okay.

FOGLEMAN: ...stipulated as to...

PRICE: Can we see the original black book?

THE COURT: Sure.

PRICE: Thank you.

THE COURT: Let me see the copy.

DAVIDSON: I'd renew our objection to the relevance, on the fact that this is something written two years ago. Well, I don't know that it's damaging, but it's something that they got out of a juvenile file, two years ago.

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, the -- actually I thought somebody who he gave it to gave it to us, but I'm not positive.

DAVIDSON: ...chain of evidence...

FOGLEMAN: You stipulated that he wrote this, I don't care when it was.

DAVIDSON: I agree I stipulated that, that was his writing.

FOGLEMAN: Alright. Your Honor --

DAVIDSON: We didn't agree, agree that it would be come into evidence.

FOGLEMAN: That's true. Your Honor, the relevance is, if you'll recall, Dr. Griffis testified that there was some confusion, because some of the symbols on that little spell book, or whatever you wanna call it, was Wicca and some of it was Satanism, which weren't consistent with each other. In this little writing, he talks about how he's in the middle, sometimes he's in the black, sometimes he's in the white. And he's trying to be in the middle which is perfectly consistent with what Dr. Griffis testified to about --

DAVIDSON: This is something two years prior.

(TAPE FLIP)

THE COURT: Okay.

FOGLEMAN: It's part of that entire book.

DAVIDSON: We would renew all of our earlier objections to those earlier --

THE COURT: Alright.

DAVIDSON: -- as far as this goes.

PRICE: Judge, we'd request that the entire book and all my client's writings be introduced in evidence. We object to just a part and parcel being taken out.

FOGLEMAN: We certainly don't have any objection to that, your Honor.

THE COURT: Alright, alright then they all may be received without objection.

(MUMBLE)

THE COURT: Ah yes, ladies and gentlemen, the same cautionary instruction previously given, the writings of the defendant Damien Echols, well, obviously relate only to him as far as your consideration of the evidence. Is that the instruction y'all wanted?

(MUMBLE)

THE COURT: Alright.

FOGLEMAN: Yes, that'll be 123. May I exhibit, your Honor?

THE COURT: Yes, you may. Call your next witness.

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, can we have just a moment?

THE COURT: Alright. You wanna take a ten minute recess?

FOGLEMAN: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Alright ladies and gentlemen, with the usual admonition not to discuss the case, we're going to stand in recess for just ten minutes.

(RECESS)

(RETURN TO OPEN COURT)(BEGINS ABRUPTLY)

FOGLEMAN: ...won't let it. I will be in the middle.

THE COURT: Alright, again, you're reminded of the previous instructions of the Court. That that evidence applies only to Damien Echols.

FOGLEMAN: Your Honor, with that the State rests, save for possible rebuttal.

THE COURT: Alright.

PRICE: Approach the bench, your Honor?

THE COURT: Alright. You gonna want to make motions, is that what you're doing?

PRICE: Yes.

THE COURT: Alright ladies and gentlemen, I'm gonna need you to step back into the jury room with the usual admonition not to discuss the case. It shouldn't take us a whole long time so...just a few minutes, please.

(JURY EXCUSED)(BEGINS ABRUPTLY)

THE COURT:...case in chief. Alright gentlemen.

FORD: Your Honor, on behalf of the defendant Jason Baldwin, we would move for a directed verdict.

THE COURT: That'll be denied. The Court --

FORD: We would base, ah, we would base our motion for a directed verdict on the sufficiency of the evidence and a lack of evidence to place Jason Baldwin at the scene of the crime, there has been no eyewitness identifying him as being a perpetrator, there is no evidence whatsoever to tie him to the act of homicide in any one individual or a group, two or three, there's no connection. There's been no evidence to place him at the scene. There's been no introduction of any scientific evidence to link him to this homicide and we'd move for a directed verdict.

THE COURT: That motion will be denied. The Court's of the opinion a prima facie case has been made, and I don't feel the need to even comment on the evidence at this point. I think it's more than sufficient.

PRICE: Judge, on behalf --

THE COURT: For a jury's consideration.

PRICE: -- on behalf of our client Damien Echols we'd also like to at this time, at the close of the State's case, uh make a motion for directed verdict for lack of sufficiency of the evidence. It's our position that the State has not made its prima facie case on the evidence, particularly the Court's aware of even the circumstantial evidence instruction and how that would relate to the case -- the Court's aware of what the evidence that's been introduced by the State and it's our position that the State has not been able to even make the prima facie case at this point and move to, that the Court grant our motion for directed verdict.

THE COURT: Again, a similar ruling. The Court's of the opinion that the State has met its burden of producing at least a prima facie case and that a jury question has been posed by their case alone.

FORD: Your Honor, in a like fashion, at the close of the State's case, uh, we would renew our motion for severance, that one of factors for the Court to take into consideration at the time of granting a severance is that there is evidence that is introduced more to one defendant than to the other defendant and that there are indications that that evidence does not apply to the other, that I believe that the evidence, that there has been overwhelming evidence has been introduced in this case that the Court has instructed the jury to apply only to Damien Echols and not to the defendant Jason Baldwin. We feel that, that although that instruction is given, that in order to ensure a fair trial by the jury that there should be a severance and that these matters, uh, should have been separated and based on the evidence that has now been produced, we would renew our motion for severance.

THE COURT: Motion will be denied.

PRICE: Judge, we would also like to join in the last motion of Mr. Ford, into the same statements that he made in reference to the reasons for the severance on behalf of Mr. Baldwin, the reverse reasons on behalf of Mr. Echols. And in addition, we'd like to renew all our previous objections raised up 'til this point in trial.

THE COURT: I don't think you have to do that, under Arkansas procedure, but uh, your motion for severance will be denied, again.